I can see the point the protesters are making, and even agree to an extent, but showing up at an employee's house rather than company property seems like going over a line. Don't most of the people who dislike Google dislike the level of creepy-ass surveillance they perform? How is it not hypocritical to spy on this guy?

I can see the point the protesters are making, and even agree to an extent, but showing up at an employee's house rather than company property seems like going over a line. Don't most of the people who dislike Google dislike the level of creepy-ass surveillance they perform? How is it not hypocritical to spy on this guy?

Taste of own medicine.

edit: I don't support what these guys are doing, but invading the lives of invasive companies is one way to draw attention to their invasive practices.

Singling out employees does not change corporate culture. Stalking and attacking individuals is a sure fire way to lose public support. And this odd fixation against self driving cars just strikes me as strange.

Okay, I don't get it. One of the greatest communications tools humanity has EVER created was first created by a government funded institution primarily for the use of government defense and militaristic purposes. The Internet (arpanet), of course. There are many, many more such items that we take for granted today (toilet paper) because a government funded institution's employees came up with some idea.

True, I don't agree that we should be tracked via GPS or other methods while we move freely around our communities, state and country. However, to protest against an automated automobile engineer is just silly. If we can remove human error out of transportation (as long as the automated systems are performing precisely), all the better for humanity. Perhaps we can get to work without slow downs because someone tapped their brake and the three people behind, who weren't paying attention, slammed their brakes, thus causing a flow stoppage and we have to wait a half an hour (instead of 10 minutes) for the flow to pick back up.

I wonder how the protestors would have grown up if they had not been sucking on the technology nipple. They seem disturbed that they had a chance in life and they blame the technology that allowed that to happen...

Interesting how their anti-Google flyer is made of text on an image taken with a Google technology (Google Street View).I would not say that it is clever or that it is not, but it certainly is interesting

And the irony of the privacy invasion, through the display of that engineer's name and address is as interesting - in a creepier way.

I can see the point the protesters are making, and even agree to an extent, but showing up at an employee's house rather than company property seems like going over a line. Don't most of the people who dislike Google dislike the level of creepy-ass surveillance they perform? How is it not hypocritical to spy on this guy?

All they did is post a flier and a picture of his home. So when Google publishes your homes front and address on the Internet is ok but when others do it for Google employees its wrong?

You do realize that picture is exactly the same what Google street does.

Actually strike that. Google publishes your home front and TOP since they also have Google maps. Next they are going to publish the inside structure with some radio scanner that scans buildings or send drones inside your garden.

Just joking. But this people have a point. Google wants data. Remember that. And since there services are free they need data as much as they can in order to profit from it. So if nobody says anything, how far should we let Google, Facebook go?

I´m sorry for those having children in this decade. Their children are never going to know what is privacy, like making a mistake or something embarrassing and having the change to regret and put it to the past. Today nothing is private anymore, everything you ever said or did will be store for ever, so there are no way someone, in particular young people will be able to forget their past and are going to be hunted by it thanks to the social networks and all this private information sharing.

We are entering a world where everyones is watching, well, strike that again. Only a few companies are watching everyone, not the world.

If you argue that they went to his home, where do you see the problem there? They did something illegal? I assume they where on the public street or do you mean its crossing the line because of privacy invasion? Well, that is exactly the point they try to make. How do Google employees feel when their privacy is invaded.

The proposed project is a testament to the arrogance, disconnection, and luxury of the ruling class. Growing their own vegetables in a rooftop garden and selling them to other wealthy people allows them, somehow, to pretend that the planet is not being ravaged by the same economy they depend on for their wealth, comfort, and safety.

workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your locavore rooftop gardens.

The moral? Don't bust your butt going to school, learning your craft, and developing products tailored to the demand signal in your industry, then dare to move somewhere were people who haven't done those things (or really, anything) live. They don't like that.

I can see the point the protesters are making, and even agree to an extent, but showing up at an employee's house rather than company property seems like going over a line. Don't most of the people who dislike Google dislike the level of creepy-ass surveillance they perform? How is it not hypocritical to spy on this guy?

All they did is post a flier and a picture of his home. So when Google publishes your homes front and address on the Internet is ok but when others do it for Google employees its wrong?

You do realize that picture is exactly the same what Google street does.

Actually strike that. Google publishes your home front and TOP since they also have Google maps. Next they are going to publish the inside structure with some radio scanner that scans buildings or send drones inside your garden.

Just joking. But this people have a point. Google wants data. Remember that. And since there services are free they need data as much as they can in order to profit from it. So if nobody says anything, how far should we let Google, Facebook go?

I´m sorry for those having children in this decade. Their children are never going to know what is privacy, like making a mistake or something embarrassing and having the change to regret and put it to the past. Today nothing is private anymore, everything you ever said or did will be store for ever, so there are no way someone, in particular young people will be able to forget their past and are going to be hunted by it thanks to the social networks and all this private information sharing.

We are entering a world where everyones is watching, well, strike that again. Only a few companies are watching everyone, not the world.

I guess I just feel like doing things that are literally the thing you are protesting is not really the right way of protesting. Nobody waterboards war criminals to show why torture is wrong or shuts down bridges to show why Chris Christie is an asshole.

I do understand the worries about privacy.But a selfdriving car is not about losing your privacy. It is perfectly possible to make a driverless car that does not communicate anything to the google (or similar) servers.

Wether google decides to this or not, is not up to the employee that designs the systems in the selfdriving car.

Is there anything I can do to give this guy my support? I think I'm going to send a check. No one deserves to be harassed like this. I hope those protesters get arrested for harassing this man on his own property!

To the commentators who write that they "do the same as Google" : I don't believe that Google exposes a particular, singled-out house to the rest of the world with the name and profession of the owner.Google indiscriminately provides the data, whereas those people target a single individual for a particular cause.. That's another game.

I do understand the worries about privacy.But a selfdriving car is not about losing your privacy. It is perfectly possible to make a driverless car that does not communicate anything to the google (or similar) servers.

Wether google decides to this or not, is not up to the employee that designs the systems in the selfdriving car.

Well, the car would likely use traffic information to plan a smarter route. But it's technically true that a connection isn't strictly required.

You do realize that picture is exactly the same what Google street does.

Actually strike that. Google publishes your home front and TOP since they also have Google maps.

Not true, actually. Does Google post your full name with the address and picture of your house together? Nope. But all of this is still readily accessible at the county clerk's office... which is still just a click away in some cases. That they have a recent picture of my manicured yard is immaterial to the type of data anyone has access.

Singling out employees does not change corporate culture. Stalking and attacking individuals is a sure fire way to lose public support. And this odd fixation against self driving cars just strikes me as strange.

I agree. The principles behind their actions are noble, but their execution of or idea of "protest" is way off the mark, both in terms of gaining support for their cause and in terms of actually accomplishing anything. Shades of Occupy Wall Street. Right intentions, but no idea how to make things happen.

Also I think Google Glass and its ability to record everyone's life without their knowing it (if used on a wide scale), and combining that capability with Google's facial recognition and access to all that Glass data, is way more scary than Google Car. And for that matter anything installed in your house, monitored byGoogle is way more scary.

Google Glass has the potential to turn half of society into walking surveillance cameras. Unlike a phone at least, where it's pretty obvious if someone is walking around with their phone out, following you around. That person you can easily identify in many cases and confront, legally or otherwise. With glass you have no clue who may be watching and recording your every word / step, and no clue when it goes online... until it's too late to do anything about it.

At least if you look at Google Car as something that might be more likely to replace a taxicab than your actual personal car (that would be scary for obvious reasons), it should be clear which is the more dangerous technology for privacy advocates and general freedom from being watched.

To the commenters who write that they "do the same as Google" : I don't believe that Google exposes a particular house to the rest of the world. Google indescriminately provides the data, whereas those people target a single individual for a particular cause.. That's another game.

"indiscriminately" but then they send you a postal letter with a code to verify your home or business address for Google places right?

What you said is not true. Its very easy to link and find someone by name and address on Google, then just get a picture from the front and top, does he have a swimming pool. How many cards does he own. What is his house number, etc.

In recent months, the buses have again become a tangible lightning rod for people concerned about the impact that the tech boom has on the local economy (protests first began in 2008).

Quite possibly the dumbest protest issue I've seen in a long time.

Let's say that Silicon Valley didn't exist at all. San Francisco would be a ghost town on it's way to Detroit (or at least San Bernadino). The one thing that has kept San Fran going has been the tech industry.

I can see the point the protesters are making, and even agree to an extent, but showing up at an employee's house rather than company property seems like going over a line. Don't most of the people who dislike Google dislike the level of creepy-ass surveillance they perform? How is it not hypocritical to spy on this guy?

That "creepy-ass" part strikes me more appropriately thought of as the message than the medium. This might be their point? EDIT: Or maybe they are completely blind to the irony. *shrug*

You do realize that picture is exactly the same what Google street does.

Actually strike that. Google publishes your home front and TOP since they also have Google maps.

Not true, actually. Does Google post your full name with the address and picture of your house together? Nope. But all of this is still readily accessible at the county clerk's office... which is still just a click away in some cases. That they have a recent picture of my manicured yard is immaterial to the type of data anyone has access.

Yeah, there's a pretty large difference between saying "this house exists at this address and looks like so" and "this individual lives at this particular address, go over there and do something."

These people need to get jobs. Of course they will complain they can't get jobs because people like them are trying to shut down companies that make jobs.

While I'm not someone who would love a self driving car, as per earlier comments, it could save the life of many a drunk driver victim. Not to mention being tired and coming home from a long day the office or jobsite.

As for the buses, I don't see a problem with what they are doing. It saves the company money by providing an employee benefit that allows them to pay lower salaries, and lowers the cost of working for the employee. It is a literal win-win. If the transit authority doesn't like it they should learn to compete and quit being a bully.

As for the military, who cares? As has been pointed out the Internet came from the military. The space program came from the military. Most medical breakthroughs have come from the military during times of war. If they are against the military, they should grab the first plane to Afghanistan and go hug it out with the Taliban.

They aren't against car-pooling, they are against people who make good money buying/living in "their" neighborhood and jacking up rents/costs.

It's complete nonsense, and flies directly into the face of common sense.

What's wrong with increasing property values? Hold out and let the property value increase and, when you're ready to sell, your investment has been very profitable.

Rents, of course, are another thing. But it's not like the property owner owns the property cost free. They still have taxes to pay among other costs. And, in CA, those taxes keep increasing without improved services or increased economy - except to raise the rent. And "the rent is d*** high."